(no subject)

[x-trickster-x.livejournal.com]

We're all agreed that the ardeur is essentially mystic date-rape, right? I mean, the men can't really consent to it and to make matters worse they can become addicted to it. But... I recently whilst watching Law and Order: SVU I wondered, what would actually happen if one of Anita's harem actually realised it was rape? 

This is assuming, of course, they're not blindly in love with the Doom Crotch. Or even what would happen if someone grew a spine and actually pointed out that it was rape? I know that LKH wouldn't dare put Anita in a situation like that because she evidently doesn't think it's rape and besides, Anita's a blatent self-insert. 

But supposing Anita's world was real or that LKH had half a brain, what would the consequences be for Anita if someone actually spoke up and said that she had raped them and how would she react? How would you deal with something like the ardeur in the real world?

Comments

[tehuti.livejournal.com]

I imagine that in a world where magic is open and somewhat understood, the penalties for using magic to force someone to do something against their will would be severe.

I'm going to make a leap here, and stop me if you think I'm wrong. The ardeur is a vamp power, and vamps that feed of someone with their powers without consent are subject to execution. So, I don't think it would take much for a DA to convince a judge that someone using a vamp power irresponsibly and indiscriminately should be subject to the same rules.

[easol.livejournal.com]

Or for them to convince a judge that Anita, while not a bloodsucker, is still vampiric and should be subject to those laws.

[cicipsychobunny.livejournal.com]

But I'd assume they'd have to have a slightly reduced charge, if Anita can convince anyone that getting and using the ardeur wasn't deliberate - kind of a manslaughter-vs-murder charge.

[pith]

Was it in an Anita book or a Jim Butcher book where it was briefly mentioned that "magical crimes" were punished quite harshly? Probably Anita, because magicy stuff isn't that outed in Dresden-land, I don't think.

I know there was a L&O:SVU episode with the subplot of the guy who raped his girlfriend's sister in his sleep (the Another Youniverse ep?), and since his was a medical condition, there wasn't much that the law could do, I believe. But in the case of the ardeur, where Anita is "aware" when she's doing things and can plan ahead... yeah, I'd like to see some legal ramifications.

Cue Dolph on his anti-monster crusade!

[ladymuttly1.livejournal.com]

IIRC the penalty for using witchcraft against someone's will is death in the AB world.

[hellozombies.livejournal.com]

I think it was stated in the book where Anita murderedwhoops, accidentally killed the voodoo priestess (I forget her name). That it only takes days for them to decide upon execution, and that it's exacted immediately for magical crimes.

Interesting thoughts.

[ladymuttly1.livejournal.com]

Ahh the good old days where there were actually consequences (or at least the risk thereof) for a character's actions.

[roguetailkinker.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure it was only murder by magic that got a death sentence. According to TH, using vampire tricks, witchcraft, or telepathy to gain information is illegal, but she never mentioned the actual penalty.

(It still pisses me off the the cow was trying to threaten Sampson for using mermaid tricks to get info. Sampson, who is one of the few nice people left in the books. And he hadn't hurt anyone! How many times has she done far worse? Gah, the hypocrisy makes me see red!)

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

Was it in an Anita book or a Jim Butcher book where it was briefly mentioned that "magical crimes" were punished quite harshly?

Both, I think. The White Council in Butcher's world beheads anyone who violates people's minds with magic. And while I can't remember the penalty for mind control in the Anitaverse, I seem to recall that the penalty for causing someone's death with magic is instant execution.

[kerame.livejournal.com]

Richard DID realize it was rape in NIC, even if he didn't call it that.

He screamed, pushed her hands away, and tried to leave the room. She felt his fear through the mind link and ENJOYED it, the way a bully of a man would enjoy raping a woman he couldn't control.

Afterwards, he clearly feels violated, and instead of apologizing, or even asking if he was all right, she essentially blames the victim by telling him he never said no.

When he leaves her after the ardeur-rape, she manages to turn the situation around (as always), and blame him for hurting HER, and as usual all her idiot fan-girls buy into this interperetaiton. In ID he even has to apologize for leaving her.

Sorry LKH. When an abused person leaves their abuser, it's not considered to be hurting the abuser in the mind of a sane person.

It's interesting that LKH will recognize a situation is wrong beforehand, but once it happens she always finds a way to justify herself.

She knew having sex with Nate would be like child-molesting and that he had a pattern of having sex with those in power over him in order to gain their protection. The ardeur "forces" her to have sex with him, and instead of making sure it doesn't happen again, she makes him her pds, and has his "therapist" condone the relationship.

She knew London was a recovering ardeur addict, she readdicted him, and instead of trying to help him recover his sobriety, he becomes another slave on the feeding cycle, but that's okay because he tells her she won't be cruel the way Belle Morte was.

The lion king spoke up and told her she was behaving like a slaver, and was condemned to near-certain death along with his family, but that's okay because it's all his fault for trying to live like a family instead of a gang.

If Anita had a conscience, and a brain, she should have hated JC for infecting her in the first place, instead of Richard for refusing to be her victim. She should be trying anything she could to break the tri. All she'd have to do is find another vampire to give her 4 marks, which would break JC's. If the ardeur were actually the horror it should be, instead of a wish-fulfillment device it would be worth it.

According to human law, Anita should face execution. Even if the preternaturals don't want to involve them, all it would take is one death to end the enslavement of all the weres. Anita makes all their lives worse not better. The only reason the council keeps dropping by is because of her. They know where she lives, she supposedly still has a job, half the time she's on her back, how hard could it be? If I were any supernatural in the city (aside from JC, Micah or nate) my top priority would be to take the psycho-bitch out!

I honestly don't think a publisher would be able to publish this series if it featured a male character who behaved this abusively towards women. The fact that Anita is constantly called "strong and independent" by her admirers, many of whom call themselves feminists, never ceases to amaze me.

[chubling.livejournal.com]

When I first started reading the books, they weren't that bad. The main character was flawed, but it was in a good way. As real people have flaws.

Then things just started to take a turn for the rather uncomfortable. And it keeps getting worse. It makes me both sad and scared that when people read these books they don't see the problem. That they think it's alright for someone to treat another person the way Anita treats her boys.

[electrichobo.livejournal.com]

OT: But is your icon from Maka Maka? <3

[chubling.livejournal.com]

Yup! Jun. I have a whole bunch of them. As I look rather like her. If, you know, I was all prettified and in a comic book ^.^

[electrichobo.livejournal.com]

Awww that's cute :p

[thisdistance.livejournal.com]

Mind you, I do think Anita herself is being raped by the ardeur to some extent - she doesn't want to be sleeping with all the men she's sleeping with. She's rationalised herself into a place of "enjoyment" and building relationships about it, but when you consider how prudish her character was early on, the infliction of the ardeur on her was pretty much rape, even if it was unintentional on Jean-Claude's part (and even if he hadn't already violated her by giving her vampire marks against her will), because it leaves her entirely without control of her own body. She's as much a victim as everyone else (which doesn't excuse her own victimisation of others). She never intended to become so promiscuous - she never intends to take any new lovers. It's always pushed onto her by something she has absolutely no ability to control.

Fundamentally, LKH really hasn't got past the "I can only enjoy crazy wild sex if I'm coerced into it" stage, which is deeply problematic in someone who uses feminist polemic all the time. Neither Anita nor Merry can just do it because they're into having group sex, it has to be something that they're backed into a corner over and then, oh dear me, find they enjoy. It's pretty much the same as those romance novels where the women are raped by pirates or sheikhs or whoever and it's supposed to be terribly sexy, except that Anita (and LKH) is in such deep denial over the amount of control she has or lacks over her own life that she can't see the position she's really in.

I would love to see what would happen to Anita herself if she suddenly lost all her powers, particularly the ardeur, and how she would actually deal with the reality of what she'd been doing if she didn't have to do it any more. Alas, LKH is convinced that she's writing someone truly liberated and cannot see any of this, so is unlikely to explore the possibility of Anita realising that she's become a slave. And not in the kinky sense.

[atypia.livejournal.com]

I agree that Anita is raped by the Arduer (just finished reading the first book where it comes up), and she's also raped by Micah the first time they have sex. She tells him no, she tells him to stop multiple times, and he keeps going.

The way LKH just avoids that whole part of it afterwards still amazes me. It's an almost standard rape scene, and still LKH/Anita doesn't see it as such.

[kerame.livejournal.com]

What surprises me, is that readers blame Micah instead of JC. If she's raped by anyone it's him. Micah, as usual, is just a convinient dildo. JC not only infects her with the ardeur with no warning, though at absolute minimum he knew it was possible, and probably did it on purpose since it gave him everything he wanted: more power and made a monogamous relationship with Richard impossible. Yet she never punishes him, or even interrogates him with the marks open.

Furthermore, when Anita reached out through the mind link to ask for his help, he used their link to force Anita's hand onto Micah's dick, thus making her protestations unbelievable to someone under the sway of the ardeur. He's the one who destroyed her autonomy, and her ability to truly say no, but like most bodice-ripper wanna-be's, that's exactly what she wants. JC is only fulfilling his function as the agent who forces her to act upon her repressed desires.

LKH only considers it rape if the rapist is unattractive to the victim. That's why no one is allowed to turn Anita down without being killed or humiliated. Since Anita is never forced to have sex with anyone she isn't attracted to: no one who's fat, bald, or a flesh-and-blood lesbian ever makes it into the DoomCrotch, and since she shows no anger towards the creature who infected her, I can't consider her a slave or a victim, though that's how the ardeur should work if LKH weren't using it to live out her masturbatory fantasies.

She's an evil tyrant who's too self-deluded and narcissistic to admit that she enjoys controlling and abusing people, so she makes axcuses for her sick desires and demonizes anyone who dares to speak truth to power.

[kerame.livejournal.com]

I also don't think she was genuinely prudish in the beginning.

Her celibacy was her way of maintaining control of her relationships.

First she controlled them by having sex with no one.
Then she controlled them by being faithful to no one.
Then the ardeur gave her personality-warping and addictive powers

She's not capable of a monogamous relationship because there's a possibilty of equality in that situation. That's why she went from zero to multiple lovers from whom she demands one-way sexual and/or emotional fidelity. It allows her to maintain the upper hand by being the most important woman in the lives of all the men while never allowing them the same security.

She's the world's sluttiest tease, and in her mary-sue fantasies that just makes the supernatural studs want her even more.

[roguetailkinker.livejournal.com]

Micah is the one who was told "no" and kept going anyway. That makes him a rapist.

[kerame.livejournal.com]

I think it's been pretty well established that neither party can really say no while under the effects of the ardeur. The one moment he might have been able to stop was before JC forced Anita's hand onto Micah's dick.

I think being infected with a supernatural std which forces you to rape or be raped every single day is a hell of a lot worse.

Furthermore if readers really believed "no means no", no one would have been rooting for JC back when it was just a triangle. How many times did Anita refuse to date JC? Until he threatened to murder someone she loved. He didn't even have the excuse of acting under some sort of metaphysical compulsion. Readers seemed to be thrilled with that, so why wouldn't LKH be shocked at the reaction to the shower-scene?

[roguetailkinker.livejournal.com]

There's a big difference between bugging someone to go out with you and having sex with someone who is saying 'no' and 'stop'.

Besides, Jean-Claude has said he had no way of knowing Anita would get his ardeur. If you think he's lying, that's your prerogative, but the fact that Micah raped Anita is right there in the text.

[kerame.livejournal.com]

Threatening to murder someone she loved goes way beyond bugging. Since he was in his right mind at the time, I think that's a hell of a lot worse than what Micah did while under the effect of a metaphysical roofie.

JC told Anita right before they married the marks, that they would be sharing powers. He knew the ardeur was one of his powers, therefore at the absolute minimum, he knew she could catch it, and gave her absolutely no warning so that she could decide if the risk was worth it. There's no way the possibilty wouldn't even have occured to him, especially since they were married at the groin chakra.

What's in the text is that the ardeur acts as a deate-rape drug on both parties, and that JC consistently lies to and manipulates Anita. Not just about the ardeur, he also lied to her about his lust-inducing powers in CoTD, never told her about being an incubus, or that the master-servant bond can feel like love. The reason readers seem to ignore that, and forgive JC, seems to come down to: JC's hot and Micah's not.

Since Anita found out about JC's continuing lies and manipulation in BM, and refused to deal with it, I have no particular sympathy for her, but how anyone who claims to be a feminist could side with JC in the early books, when he acted just like any other controlling creep from a bodice-ripper is beyond me.

[roguetailkinker.livejournal.com]

What he said was, if she didn't date both of them, he and Richard would fight. Richard could just as easily have killed Jean-Claude, and it's not like R was exactly reluctant to fight either. I'm not saying everything Jean-Claude did is innocent, but Micah damn sure isn't. I don't buy "the ardeur made him do it".

How can you blame Anita for what the ardeur makes her do and then turn around and excuse Micah on the same basis? I'd say that's a lot scarier than not hating Jean-Claude because he didn't tell Anita every single possible consequence of marks which were already a done deal anyway.

[kerame.livejournal.com]

When I blame Anita for the actions she takes, it's after the ardeur hunger has been fed.

I blame her for showing no concern for Richard, telling him he never said no, then acting as though he was the one in the wrong for leaving her. (though the fact that she enjoyed his fear means she wanted to hurt him)

I blame her for continuing to use Nathaniel to feed the ardeur after the first "accidental" time. (though the fact that she wanted to have sex with such a childlike character who she was acting as a guardian for says something deeply disturbing about her)

I blame her for continuing to use London after another "accidental" first time, instead of refusing to take advantage of an addict.

Since the ardeur works on both parties it's no more fair to blame the man than the woman.

The marriage of the marks was not a done deal.
Getting her into bed in the early books was not a done deal. The only thing she felt for him was lust, and he lied about the source of that lust in order to get her into bed and addict him to her sexually. At the beginning of BM, Anita says she feels addicted to him, but it wasn't vampire powers, just good old-fashioned lust, since JC's an incubus, it wasn't just lust, it was addictive, supernatural powers. Then she finds out from Damian that the master-servant bond can feel like love. So he was messing with her mind and free-will deliberately. That's a far greater violation than Micah's.

[roguetailkinker.livejournal.com]

You think the only reason Anita lusts after Jean-Claude's body is because he "vamped" her with his incubus power? There's nothing in the text to support that. That's like saying that just because somebody has a gun, they must have shot somebody. You're just jumping to conclusions.

I think it's funny that you say the readers only like him because he's hot, but you refuse to believe Anita would lust after him for the same reason.

It sounds to me like you're just "translating" the text to support the conclusions you already made- that it's all Jean-Claude's fault, and Micah is totally innocent. I'm not going to go point by point on how much you've assumed and bent to support your argument, so I'll just say that I don't agree and that doesn't make me a "bad feminist" or whatever it is you're trying to imply.

[roguetailkinker.livejournal.com]

I should also add that it has not even been established in canon that he CAN addict anyone to him sexually. Sure, the ardeur is addictive, but as poor London proves, that addiction extends to anybody who holds the ardeur. It's not personal to one vamp.

[kerame.livejournal.com]

JC was presented as hot. There's a big difference between natural lust, which humans are aware of and somewhat prepared to deal with, and a supernatural power. She might have been attracted to him without the ardeur, but since she didn't like, love, or even respect him, without that supernatural ability he didn't have a real chance of getting someone who claimed to be waiting for marriage into bed without it.

It's really jumping to conclusions to say that a character who would blackmail a woman into dating him, and was desperate to possess her power would use his supernatural abilities to make her lust after him.

The arguments I made ARE based on the text and the behavior of the characters, unlike your assumptions that Micah acted deliberately, when the behavior of the ardeur and Micah's complete passivity in every other instance completely contradict that.

I never said that JC's addictiveness was personal. What difference would that make? He lied to her about his powers in order to make her think the lust was something between the two of them, not a power he could use on anyone. He wanted to addict her so she'd be less likely to leave him even if she did eventually find out.

I don't like Micah. I think he's a tool, partly JC's. But you and other people who claim to be feminists have said you like a character who blackmails and manipulates a woman, then infects her with an eternal roofie without even warning her so she could choose whether to take the risk.

Since Anita never punishes JC for his behavior, I guess it's just what she secretly wanted all along, but that's the case with all the so-called "heroines" in bodice-rippers, and the controlling creeps who supposedly love them.

[roguetailkinker.livejournal.com]

She might have been attracted to him without the ardeur, but since she didn't like, love, or even respect him, without that supernatural ability he didn't have a real chance of getting someone who claimed to be waiting for marriage into bed without it.

I can see you've never been in lust. You don't have to like somebody to want to get horizontal with them. Sometimes it's just as simple as hormones.


It's really jumping to conclusions to say that a character who would blackmail a woman into dating him, and was desperate to possess her power would use his supernatural abilities to make her lust after him.

I'm glad we agree on that, considering there's no proof he even has any power to "addict" anyone to him.

Your entire argument amounts to: He's an incubus, therefore he can make her want him, therefore he did make her want him.

It's been stated repeatedly that what happened (Anita getting his ardeur) has never happened before. So how exactly was he supposed to warn her about something he didn't even think was possible?


Let's just drop it, shall we? It's obvious nobody is going to change your mind, and your convoluted arguments certainly aren't going to change mine.

[kerame.livejournal.com]

Anita used to claim she needed a lot more than lust. He knew once he got her into bed she'd tell herself that she loved him. Lying about his lust-inducing power helped him get that far, Anita's screwed up psyche did the rest.

A character who handed over Robert, who he later claimed was his friend, to be raped and tortured by Raina for reasons far less pressing than losing a powerful tool, isn't such a gentleman that he wouldn't induce lust.

He told her that the ardeur had never been passed by giving the marks, but he knew that with the marriage of the marks they would be sharing more powers. He also told her he didn't know how many, since her power was so strong. As I said before, he knew the ardeur was one of his powers, he said the power-sharing would be unpredictable, he knew they were to be married at the groin chakra, so at the absolute minimum he knew he could infect her with something that would cause her to lose her sexual autonomy, and never gave her a choice intaking that risk. Was he also ignorant of the master-servant bond? Of course not. He wanted her to believe what she felt for him was love, just as he wanted her to believe her lust for him came entirely from within.

My arguments are perfectly clear. JC blackmailed and manipulated Anita through both threats and mind-altering powers. Micah is a doormat and the ardeur rapes both parties.

Yours are, that despite his established character, JC nobly refused to use a power available to him, and that despite the overwhelming nature of the ardeur, Micah's passivity in every other instance, and JC's dick-grabbing at the critical moment, that Micah is the guilty party.

Since the series is written in first person, and JC isn't likely to admit to using his powers on her, or knowingly infecting her, his character is all we have to go by. Since you haven't made any arguments in JC's favor other than hotness, it comes back to: JC hot. Micah not.

[tsubaki-ny.livejournal.com]

"He screamed, pushed her hands away, and tried to leave the room. She felt his fear through the mind link and ENJOYED it, the way a bully of a man would enjoy raping a woman he couldn't control.

Afterwards, he clearly feels violated, and instead of apologizing, or even asking if he was all right, she essentially blames the victim by telling him he never said no. "

That's really, really horrible.

[darkladynyara.livejournal.com]

Sorry LKH. When an abused person leaves their abuser, it's not considered to be hurting the abuser in the mind of a sane person.

You just hit on something that disturbes me about their "relationship"...I mean, besides the obvious. When someone leaves an abuser, the abuser does feel hurt. Not because they give a damn about the person, but because they have made their control of the person a huge part of their identity. The fact that LKH writes that mindset without even realizing it is pretty damn unnerving.

[kerame.livejournal.com]

She's so twisted that every time Richard stands up for himself by trying to leave her in order to live his own life he's made miserable, and described as "self-loathing". The only respite he's allowed from his misery is when he gives in to her by going against his own character and doing what she wants. A perfect catch-22.

He leaves her after she horribly betrays him and is kept miserable until he agrees to a 3-way relationship with his blackmailer and betrayer.
He leaves her after she ardeur-rapes him and is kept miserable until he agrees to be part of the harem.
He refuses to watch her pick out other sex-toys in front of his face in DM and is punished by having her gang-bangs downloaded straight into his brain, then is made to apologize for having avoided the pds contest in the first place. He's not even allowed to have the refuge of his own mind.

She defines people as "well-adjusted" if they abnegate themselves in order to fit into her life at the cost of the loss of their personality, independence, and self-respect.

[fangedsekhmet.livejournal.com]

Maybe LKH has decided it only counts against humans and not other magical monsters.

Unless of course she has used it against a human and I've forgotten/not read that far?

[longtail.livejournal.com]

Well, honestly I can't see the human police having much ability to prosecute something like this. For a world who has ALWAYS had monsters, they're pretty damned clueless on it all (my major pet peeve with the universe, the police would NOT be this inept at their jobs even if the law did previously just say point a gun and shoot it if it has fangs or fur.) So I can't see her being humanely prosecuted.

Honestly, I'd see the vampires and weres fighting to prosecute her with their own societal justice and likely executing her.

If I were to go back to the old Anita who actually dealt with problems instead of wangsting to death and she was confronted with it being rape, she'd likely hate herself terribly for it, realize that what's done is done, and try to fix the problem and try to make amends.

Honestly though, the ardeur should have just died after NiC. JC can obviously live just fine with it without it taking over his life, so why is uber-powerful Anita totally unable to do so still? It might have been a good plot shaking point if it blossomed and died with NiC, but it's gone past being useful to the plot a long time ago except as an E-ticket to killing off the main character for exactly the reasons you sited.

Nobody would have tolerated an a real inept and uncontrollable succubus in their midst this long.

[darkladynyara.livejournal.com]

Honestly though, the ardeur should have just died after NiC. JC can obviously live just fine with it without it taking over his life, so why is uber-powerful Anita totally unable to do so still?

My theory? She doesn't want to control it.

When the ardeur was first introduced, it was mentioned that Anita's "hungers" were all interconnected, and that if she fed one, the others wouldn't be so overwhelming. In short, she could get rid of the "emergency rape sex" by eating regularly. Sure, she would still feed off of sex, but she wouldn't need her harem. And Anita doesn't want that, because then she would have to take responsibility for her actions.

Exactly.

[rozasharn.livejournal.com]

When I first read the part about eating regularly, I expected her to start filling her car, purse, and equipment bag with energy bars, and stop for drive-through takeout whenever she could, and ask Nathaniel to make sure there was always cooked food in the fridge. It's what I'd do.

But no, she ignores it and then acts surprised when she has to feed the ardeur, again.

[kd-lalala.livejournal.com]

Reading this brought to mind something that really bothered me for a long time, you know Anita is not only a member of a squad connected to the police force, she's also a Federal Marshall. In the earlier books, she was the official executioner for the tri state area. She's not exactly a politician and not even in the earlier books did Anita really care how what she did reflected on the offices she was supposed to uphold but if anything, she should have EVERYONE looking at her sideways for her behavior.

I mean, she's not only supposed to uphold the moral values she believed in personally, which she's failed to do several times over. She was a person who ENFORCED preternatural laws and human ones. She officially executed vampires who were condemned for abusing their powers, she was called in by the police to investigate crimes specifically caused by non human entities. You would think that if anything, she would be held up to an even higher set of standards in the eye of the law.

I know none of this is brought up in the stories anymore, but geeze, LKH, look at how Anita acts now. Even if the institutions she worked for before only saw a fraction of what she's up to, there's no way in the world they'd want her representing them, and by all accounts Jean Claude should've had a warrant for his execution put out long ago.

[kerame.livejournal.com]

The way LKH deals with this is by character assassinating Dolf, and insisting that he needs "therapy", just like every character who dares to criticize Anita.

He has every reason to distrust a Marshall who's fucking the entire monster power structure, but instead of dealing with that, she turns him into yet another character with personal problems which he takes out on Anita.

[kd-lalala.livejournal.com]

Exactly, which I noticed is her way of dealing with anyone who might actually call Anita on her bullshit. *nodnod* Either dead or a bad guy.

[darkese.livejournal.com]

The main problem in trying to figure out what should happen to AB because of the ardeur (should she be arrested or killed?) is that the problem has gone on for so long with so many HUGE holes in logic that it's impossible to untangle the mess. She's a marshall but shouldn't be, she is raped by the ardeur but acts like it isn't rape, she rapes others but considers it good fun, she isn't human, isn't lycan, isn't vampire but has all the bonuses of them - and it goes on and on.

Pull on one thread with some logic and all the rest has to come unraveled. The whole series is just a soupy mastabatory mary sue fantasy.

[kd-lalala.livejournal.com]

Yea, I suppose I'm simply voicing something rather than actually looking for a viable explanation, since really there isn't one.

It just bothers me with these books, plain and simple. It bothers me that Anita actually used to be someone you could believe in upholding the law. It didn't last long, but for a while she was a powerful woman in a world where two forces, the human world and the supernatural world were making an effort to co exist, who officially served a purpose, defending people from the bad guys in the preternatural world. At the same time she was also a part of that world, relating and even sympathizing with some of the 'monsters', and over the course of the early series she had to start blurring her lines about what made a human and what made a monster.

That's what she started out as. It bothers me that LKH holds her up as someone to be looked up to, like she's actually a moral figure in a way, when she's NOT, not as she is now, but she -could- have been.

[darkese.livejournal.com]

What used to make the monsters so dangerous were they could be so seductive to a human. AB/LKH just got horny and said 'screw it'. No further explanation needed.

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

But supposing Anita's world was real or that LKH had half a brain

FATAL ERROR

ABORT/RETRY/FAIL?

[gothgoddessrhia.livejournal.com]

Abort.